Has terrorism ever been successful?

[DrZoidberg]

I heard a podcast today where they made the pithy remark that no terrorist attack ever has managed to achieve it's political goal. I can think of loads of terrorist attacks that have been successful in directly influencing the policies that followed. Granted that all of those were terrorist attacks carried out in various anti-colonial fight-for-independence type situations. But other than that I couldn't think of any terrorist attacks that have been successful. The topic of the podcast was the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The attack did have the exact opposite effect of spreading Charlie Hebdo's, pretty tasteless and unfunny, cartoons to a way wider audience than they had. Also, acting to swing anti-Muslim sentiment even further.

So, the quesetion is: did the Charlie Hebdo attack (and similar) attacks ever achieve their goals?

Note: this is terrorism where civilians attack civilians to achieve political goals. This is NOT a wider definition of the word. I'd be grateful if we could avoid discussions on semantics here. As far as this thread is concerned state sponsored attacks on their own population is not considered terrorism. Neither is it terrorism when a country is at war. Then it's just war. I'm thinking of terror attacks inside a country, otherwise at peace.

 

[fromderinside]

I heard a podcast today where they made the pithy remark that no terrorist attack ever has managed to achieve it's political goal. I can think of loads of terrorist attacks that have been successful in directly influencing the policies that followed. Granted that all of those were terrorist attacks carried out in various anti-colonial fight-for-independence type situations. But other than that I couldn't think of any terrorist attacks that have been successful. The topic of the podcast was the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The attack did have the exact opposite effect of spreading Charlie Hebdo's, pretty tasteless and unfunny, cartoons to a way wider audience than they had. Also, acting to swing anti-Muslim sentiment even further.

So, the quesetion is: did the Charlie Hebdo attack (and similar) attacks ever achieve their goals?

Note: this is terrorism where civilians attack civilians to achieve political goals. This is NOT a wider definition of the word. I'd be grateful if we could avoid discussions on semantics here. As far as this thread is concerned state sponsored attacks on their own population is not considered terrorism. Neither is it terrorism when a country is at war. Then it's just war. I'm thinking of terror attacks inside a country, otherwise at peace.

Do you consider american revolutionaries terrorists? If so, yes, terrorists have done 'good'.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Unfortunately they can. (See Irish independence)

 

[Sarpedon]

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand led to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the establishment of a Yugoslavia dominated by Serbia, which was precisely the goal of the Black Hand.

Also to be considered is assassination of Yitzak Rabin, which led to the scuttling of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, as well as a vast increase in illegal settlements.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nelson Mandela comes to mind.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Unfortunately they can. (See Irish independence)

I did mention specifically those types of terrorist attacks in the OP as successful. But the one you mentioned had a mixed success. The 1919 Republic was partly due to Irish terror attacks. But the IRA didn't stop their attacks there. They kept going. All attacks after 1919 has been a dismal failure. And now they've even had to concede that it's a lost cause and laid down their arms. I lived in London for a while in the 80'ies. I remember the general attitude of the Londoners. They did not give a shit about the IRA bombings. And this was despite the attacks coming with some regularity. The Londoners talked about IRA like they talked about the weather. I remember specifically a mortar attack on Heathrow in the 90'ies because I was at Heathrow at the time. They didn't even shut down the airport. It had zero impact on my flight, which left on schedule. I thought that was bizarre and shocking at the time. Apart from some security personal running around frantically none of the regular staff seemed to give a shit. The British travellers lowered their newspapers for a bit, and then raised them again. Really weird feeling.

- - - Updated - - -

Nelson Mandela comes to mind.

Good one. In spite of Mandela being one of my greatest hero's that one had slipped my mind completely.

 

[TSwizzle]

I heard a podcast today where they made the pithy remark that no terrorist attack ever has managed to achieve it's political goal.

The Madrid bombings springs to mind. It brought about Spain dropping out of the coalition of the willing after the next general election.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

From what I read, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was not to defeat the US but to make us act irrationally in response. I think that worked very well, the US has been more irrational in foreign policy ever since.

Yes, ever since. Even right now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

From what I read, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was not to defeat the US but to make us act irrationally in response. I think that worked very well, the US has been more irrational in foreign policy ever since.

Yes, ever since. Even right now.

Osama Bin Laden was very explicit about the reasons for 9/11. It was for the sole purpose of making USA meddle less in "Muslim" countries. I'd say that terrorist attack was spectacularly unsuccessful.

The explanation you give sounds like a justification after the fact. It sounds more like a kind of conspiracy theory to fit the result, rather than the facts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I heard a podcast today where they made the pithy remark that no terrorist attack ever has managed to achieve it's political goal. I can think of loads of terrorist attacks that have been successful in directly influencing the policies that followed. Granted that all of those were terrorist attacks carried out in various anti-colonial fight-for-independence type situations. But other than that I couldn't think of any terrorist attacks that have been successful. The topic of the podcast was the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The attack did have the exact opposite effect of spreading Charlie Hebdo's, pretty tasteless and unfunny, cartoons to a way wider audience than they had. Also, acting to swing anti-Muslim sentiment even further.

So, the quesetion is: did the Charlie Hebdo attack (and similar) attacks ever achieve their goals?

Note: this is terrorism where civilians attack civilians to achieve political goals. This is NOT a wider definition of the word. I'd be grateful if we could avoid discussions on semantics here. As far as this thread is concerned state sponsored attacks on their own population is not considered terrorism. Neither is it terrorism when a country is at war. Then it's just war. I'm thinking of terror attacks inside a country, otherwise at peace.

Do you consider american revolutionaries terrorists? If so, yes, terrorists have done 'good'.

Yes, I do. Washington was obviously a terrorist as far as the British were concerned. The Boston Tea Party was a straight up terrorist attack. No back bending or twisting of facts in the world can escape that fact. But I did mention anti-colonial "freedom fighters" in the OP. So they're covered already.

 

[bilby]

I did mention specifically those types of terrorist attacks in the OP as successful. But the one you mentioned had a mixed success. The 1919 Republic was partly due to Irish terror attacks. But the IRA didn't stop their attacks there. They kept going. All attacks after 1919 has been a dismal failure. And now they've even had to concede that it's a lost cause and laid down their arms. I lived in London for a while in the 80'ies. I remember the general attitude of the Londoners. They did not give a shit about the IRA bombings. And this was despite the attacks coming with some regularity. The Londoners talked about IRA like they talked about the weather. I remember specifically a mortar attack on Heathrow in the 90'ies because I was at Heathrow at the time. They didn't even shut down the airport. It had zero impact on my flight, which left on schedule. I thought that was bizarre and shocking at the time. Apart from some security personal running around frantically none of the regular staff seemed to give a shit. The British travellers lowered their newspapers for a bit, and then raised them again. Really weird feeling.

I lived in the UK for the majority of the period of heightened IRA attacks on the mainland (1972-1997), and I still maintain that this 'business as usual' attitude is the correct response to terrorism - only those who are directly employed in counter-terrorism should take any notice at all.

The post 11/9/2001 approach of emulating the Americans by engaging in: panic and alarm; heightened security in areas not currently under direct threat of attack; inconveniencing of the general public; restriction of freedoms; and increased surveillance, all seems to me to be the best way to assist terrorists in achieving their goal of frightening people, and as such is hugely counter-productive.

The best thing to do about terrorism (unless you are a policeman) is to ignore it. Anything else is simply playing into the terrorist's hands.

That the British freaked out after the 2005 bombings, in a way that they never did in the 20th century, is bizarre and difficult to explain without resorting to conspiracy theories about governments using terrorism as an excuse to become more dictatorial.

 

[bilby]

Do you consider american revolutionaries terrorists? If so, yes, terrorists have done 'good'.

Yes, I do. Washington was obviously a terrorist as far as the British were concerned. The Boston Tea Party was a straight up terrorist attack. No back bending or twisting of facts in the world can escape that fact. But I did mention anti-colonial "freedom fighters" in the OP. So they're covered already.

And it is by no means obvious that American independence is a 'good' result. WWI would have been shorter and more decisive if the USA had been a British Dominion, like (or even part of) Canada, in 1914. WWII might not even have occurred, but if it had, again it would likely have been far shorter with the USA in on it from 1939.

USAians might even have wound up as polite, secular and cultured, like the Canadians did.

Bloody terrorists have a lot to answer for.

 

[tupac chopra]

From what I read, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was not to defeat the US but to make us act irrationally in response. I think that worked very well, the US has been more irrational in foreign policy ever since.

Yes, ever since. Even right now.

Osama Bin Laden was very explicit about the reasons for 9/11. It was for the sole purpose of making USA meddle less in "Muslim" countries. I'd say that terrorist attack was spectacularly unsuccessful.

.

He also apparently said his goal (in general) was to bankrupt the US.

Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S

(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It got us out of Lebanon in 1983.

 

[Archimedes]

I did mention specifically those types of terrorist attacks in the OP as successful. But the one you mentioned had a mixed success. The 1919 Republic was partly due to Irish terror attacks.

The Irish Republic wasn't founded in 1919, it was established in 1922 after a War of Independence that lasted from 1919 till the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in late 1921 (effective in early 1922).

But the IRA didn't stop their attacks there. They kept going. All attacks after 1919 has been a dismal failure.

After 1919, the IRA were a major player in the guerrilla war against British forces, called the Irish War of Independence, that ultimately established the modern nation state of the Republic of Ireland (than called the Irish Free State).

It was after the founding of the modern Irish Free State that the IRA became an enemy of the Republic and in the subsequent Irish Civil War were defeated by government forces and reduces to an irrelevancy that didn't resurge until the Troubles kicked off in the North in the late 1960s ./ early 1970s.

 

[Harry Bosch]

He also apparently said his goal (in general) was to bankrupt the US. Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S

That didn't work out to well. The U.S. Economy is going strong, the califate state was lost in Afghanistan.

 

[tupac chopra]

He also apparently said his goal (in general) was to bankrupt the US. Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S

That didn't work out to well. The U.S. Economy is going strong, the califate state was lost in Afghanistan.

US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion

If you think the US can pay it's debts I'd love to see the maths (though that might be best for another thread).
Maybe if it makes a few Trillion dollar coins it could?

 

[Axulus]

The best thing to do about terrorism (unless you are a policeman) is to ignore it. Anything else is simply playing into the terrorist's hands.

That the British freaked out after the 2005 bombings, in a way that they never did in the 20th century, is bizarre and difficult to explain without resorting to conspiracy theories about governments using terrorism as an excuse to become more dictatorial.

The white Irish terrorists were a people they could relate to, empathize with, and, on some level, understand, even if they vehemently disagreed with them and condemned their tactics. The Islamist terrorists and their goals are completely foreign to them, the only explanation must be that they are pure evil. Pure evil is chaos and incomprehensible. Therefore, extreme measures must be undertaken to maintain order. This is all a result of the core make-up of the human brain to respond in such a way, to the determent of the societies that are impacted.

 

[bilby]

The best thing to do about terrorism (unless you are a policeman) is to ignore it. Anything else is simply playing into the terrorist's hands.

That the British freaked out after the 2005 bombings, in a way that they never did in the 20th century, is bizarre and difficult to explain without resorting to conspiracy theories about governments using terrorism as an excuse to become more dictatorial.

The white Irish terrorists were a people they could relate to, emphasize with, and, on some level, understand, even if they vehemently disagreed with them and condemned their tactics. The Islamist terrorists and their goals are completely foreign to them, the only explanation must be that they are pure evil. Pure evil is chaos and incomprehensible. Therefore, extreme measures must be undertaken to maintain order. This is all a result of the core make-up of the human brain to respond in such a way, to the determent of the societies that are impacted.

I am doubtful about this explanation; The Irish, particularly Irish Republicans, are not a group that the English have historically understood, nor empathised with. My experience as an Englishman is that second and third generation English born Muslims, such as those who comitted the 2005 London bombings, are, if anything, more familiar and less alien than the Irish.

The London bombers came from the same area I do, and the community in that part of Leeds has a significant proportion of Muslims - most of whom, in that age range, are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants. About a third of the kids in my school were from that background, and they and their parents spoke like Yorkshiremen; by comparison, the only kid of Irish ancestry I recall was Brendan McMahon, whose dad had a totally incomprehensible accent.

The Irish don't even follow the cricket.

 

[Axulus]

The white Irish terrorists were a people they could relate to, emphasize with, and, on some level, understand, even if they vehemently disagreed with them and condemned their tactics. The Islamist terrorists and their goals are completely foreign to them, the only explanation must be that they are pure evil. Pure evil is chaos and incomprehensible. Therefore, extreme measures must be undertaken to maintain order. This is all a result of the core make-up of the human brain to respond in such a way, to the determent of the societies that are impacted.

I am doubtful about this explanation; The Irish, particularly Irish Republicans, are not a group that the English have historically understood, nor empathised with. My experience as an Englishman is that second and third generation English born Muslims, such as those who comitted the 2005 London bombings, are, if anything, more familiar and less alien than the Irish.

The London bombers came from the same area I do, and the community in that part of Leeds has a significant proportion of Muslims - most of whom, in that age range, are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants. About a third of the kids in my school were from that background, and they and their parents spoke like Yorkshiremen; by comparison, the only kid of Irish ancestry I recall was Brendan McMahon, whose dad had a totally incomprehensible accent.

The Irish don't even follow the cricket.

But just think about the differences in the perception of the two groups, whether the perceptions are well grounded in reality or not:

One group loves death more than we love life. How can you possibly trust or come to a compromise with such a group? How can they be trusted?

The other group has a political grievance. At the core, they are a people that can be reasoned with. They recoil from violence against their own people as much as we recoil against violence against ours. Therefore, they will come to an agreement that reduces the violence against both of us.

One group hates us for who we are, they hate our core values and oppose them at the very core of their being. The only thing they think we are worthy of is death unless we completely do a 180 on our beliefs and values to agree with them in every key respect.

The other group, at their core, doesn't hate us for our general values of human rights, freedom of expression, secularism, or other political values. They hate us for our what they perceive as control and meddling in what they consider to be territory and a people that should join up with them and be under their control. They want to bring the territory under their own political control. Once these understandable (not agreeable, but understandable) demands are satisfied, they will no longer have reason to initiate further violence against us. Because they are reasonable, not all of their demands need be met to stop the violence. At some point, a compromise will be found, and the violence will stop. And the compromise that must be made will not completely compromise our core values.

One group is foreign. They come from a culture of different core values, many of which are diametrically opposed to our own. Their religion is strange to us.

The other group is our neighbors, they share in many of our core values and dreams.